Writ jurisdiction and disputed facts bar challenge to a garnishee notice under income-tax recovery provisions

A writ petition under Article 226 was not maintainable to quash a garnishee notice under section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act where the rival claims depended on disputed questions of fact. The petitioner claimed the deposits were his own and unrelated to the alleged defaulter, while the Revenue maintained that the defaulter was a partnership firm in which the petitioner was a partner and jointly liable. As the controversy required factual adjudication unsuitable for writ jurisdiction, the Court declined to examine the merits and left the petitioner to pursue the remedy available in law. The challenge to the notice therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could be entertained to quash a garnishee notice issued under section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 when the rival claims turned on disputed questions of fact.

Analysis: The petitioner's case was that the deposits standing in his name belonged to him and had no connection with the alleged defaulter, while the Revenue asserted that the defaulter concern was a partnership firm in which the petitioner was a partner and therefore jointly and severally liable. The controversy depended on factual disputes that could not be satisfactorily adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. In such a situation, the Court declined to examine the merits of the competing factual claims and left the petitioner to pursue the remedy available in law before the appropriate forum.

Conclusion: The writ petition was held to be not maintainable on account of disputed questions of fact, and the challenge to the notice under section 226(3) failed.

---